There are a wide range of scenarios, including, for example, entertainment-related card game settings and education-related learning environments, wherein great benefits would be derived given the capability of individuals to exchange application-specific types of information between respective individual-controlled computers, portable electronic devices and the like, in a discreet manner incorporating useful functional features, with the ultimate goal of affecting an increased understanding by one individual of the mental thought processes of at least one other individual. An example of one such scenario pertains to the playing of a well-known popular card game commonly referred to as “Contract Bridge.”
It cannot be overemphasized that the Applicant's reference to the card game “Contact Bridge” throughout this patent application is merely the result of Applicant's choice to use this particular card game to illustrate one example clearly conveying the beneficial effects of the present invention as a means for facilitating the computer-implemented exchange of information between individuals—in this case between two individuals functioning as partners—in a competitive card game incorporating rules strictly limiting available means for partner-to-partner communication. Accordingly, the card game Contact Bridge merely represents one of a myriad of possible situations wherein the present invention effectively functions to create—otherwise unavailable—means for enabling individuals within the aforementioned possible situations to communicate with one another.
In the case of Contract Bridge, the system and method of the present invention happen to very effectively solve a well-known, long-standing, as-of-yet unresolved problem associated with card game playing partner-to-partner communications; namely, situations in which restricted, or limited, communication between individual playing partners has been clearly shown to negatively impact one or more goals (i.e., of the aforementioned card playing partners) associated with the particular scenario. Accordingly, as will be clearly apparent to those skilled in the art, although Contact Bridge provides a convenient example to illustrate the benefits of the broader overriding concept—used herein to explain one example of how the present invention can be implemented to solve a long-standing problem—the present invention should in no way be considered limited to this, or any other, implementation of the present invention referenced herein. To the contrary, the present invention already has widespread applicability, and will likely prove to be very effective as a learning tool that will continue to be adapted for use with a growing number of applications.
In order to understand the problem that this invention has solved with respect to the game of Contract Bridge, it is not necessary to have expert-level knowledge of the game. However, understanding at least the basics of Contract Bridge will likely prove beneficial—providing a greater understanding of the present invention's effectiveness overcoming the long-standing problems, drawbacks and limitations associated with Contract Bridge that the invention solves. Although some very basic principles of the game will be described herein, it is recommended that the reader peruse the Internet (or local bookstore) for one of many available websites (and/or books) that provide a very thorough and detailed explanation of the finer points of the game. As an example, the web site www.BridgeWorld.com appears to provide a relatively comprehensive description of the more significant features of the game. Applicant hereby incorporates the entire contents of this website herein by reference thereto.
In its most basic form, Contract Bridge is a card game of skill, which is conventionally played by four people divided up into two 2-man teams of competing partnerships. For purposes of scoring and reference, each player is identified by one of the points of the compass, wherein North and South (Team 1) play against East and West (Team 2). Variants of this framework can be used incorporating additional players, but the most popular and common play is with a four-person field of players. The game normally utilizes a conventional 52-card playing deck (or, alternatively, two decks are sometimes used, for convenience). The four suits are ranked as follows: Spades (highest rank); Hearts (second highest rank); Diamonds (third highest rank); and Clubs (lowest rank). Each suit contains thirteen cards, from Ace (highest) to deuce (lowest). The five most powerful cards in each suit (i.e., Ace through Ten) are commonly referred to as “Honor” cards, while the lower nine cards (i.e., Nine through Deuce) are commonly referred to as “Spot” cards. The rank of the cards within a suit applies to the phase of Bridge called “the play.”
Unlike some activities in which every participating individual is out for himself or herself, Contract Bridge is a partnership trick-taking card game in which on each of several successive deals the opposing sides may initially compete in a bidding auction for the right to establish the contract for that deal, with the side winning the auction commonly referred to as the “declaring side.”
The contract is an exchange of the right to establish which suit, if any, is trumped for an undertaking to win, as a minimum, the number of tricks specified by the highest bid. After the contract has been established, the play of the cards proceeds as in most trick-taking card games until all thirteen tricks have been played. At any time during the play, one side may claim a stated number of the remaining tricks and concede the balance, if any.
Based on the actual number of tricks taken, the declaring side will have either succeeded or failed in fulfilling the contract. If successful, also known as “making” or to have “made,” the declaring side scores points. If unsuccessful, also known as going “down” or being “defeated,” the defending side scores points. The overriding objective is to win the contest by accumulating more points than the opponents. Although each variant of Contract Bridge has its own particular scheme for awarding and accumulating points, all are based upon whether or not the contract for each deal was made or defeated, and by how many tricks.
The bidding process comprises one of the more involved strategic stages of the card game. For example, bidding a contract that one does not expect to make and doe expect to be defeated, thus losing some points, can sometimes be advantageous rather than allowing the opposing side to bid and make a contract, which would score them an even greater number of points. This is known as a “sacrifice,” and is not uncommon if both sides are contesting the final contract. Thus, much of the complexity in bridge arises from the difficulty of arriving at a good final contract in the auction. This is a difficult problem because the two players in a partnership must try to communicate sufficient information about their hands to arrive at a makeable contract, but the information they can exchange is restricted to information that may be passed only by the calls made and later by the cards played, not by other means. Additionally, the agreed-upon meaning of each call and play must be available to the opponents.
Because a partnership that has the freedom to bid gradually at leisure can exchange more information, and because a partnership that can interfere with the opponents' bidding (as by raising the bidding level rapidly) can cause difficulties for their opponents, bidding systems are both informational and strategic. It is this mixture of information exchange and evaluation, deduction and tactics, which is at the heart of bidding in bridge. Significantly, in this game exact situations are virtually never duplicated, since there are apparently 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 possible situations (deals). Accordingly, every situation will offer something unique. Certain general principles are useful in many different situations, and their mastery is rewarding to serious students of the game. However, due to the astronomical number of possible situations, conventional tactics that may be useful in other card games (e.g., partners playing a great quantity of practice hands and discussing strategies to employ depending upon a particular situation) are wholly ineffective. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for partners to end up arguing soon after commencing a discussion as to what went wrong that resulted in a loss, why certain actions were taken by one's partner, etc.
Once the contract bid has been established, the cards are then played to determine who takes which tricks. Playing techniques for taking tricks also involves strategy, wherein there are substantially four ways of taking a trick by force. Taking tricks by playing a high card that no one else can beat or by trumping an opponent's high card are the easiest ways to take a trick. Tricks can also be taken by establishing long suits wherein the last cards in a suit will take tricks if the opponents don't have the suit and are unable to trump, and by playing for the opponents' high cards to be in a particular position. Nearly all trick-taking techniques in bridge can be reduced to one of these four methods. Again, conventional means used by partners attempting to determine what mistakes were made and by whom often spiral into a completely non-productive argument.
The optimum play of the cards can require much thought and experience, and is also the subject of strategy and understanding between partners. This is a very critical issue. Contract Bridge presents a fascinating challenge in the area of communications. Each player holds thirteen cards, and there are clearly defined rules concerning the information a player is permitted to give to his or her partner. Within these highly-restrictive limitations, players must choose ways to exchange information in order to get the most out of the combined partnership assets. Due to the staggering statistically proven variations of situations, Contract Bridge is not a game wherein partners can learn to manage the game manually by human beings, nor gain a better understanding of a partner's style of play based upon practice games (neither in-person practice games nor long distance Internet practice games). For this reason, there has been a long-standing unmet need for a means of providing partners with a method to improve the mental aspects of the game. That is, it would be very beneficial to provide a computer-implemented system and method that could be employed by playing partners, which could effectively improve each partner's ability to expand his or her understanding of a partner's mental thought process based upon a given situation, where that understanding cannot be enhanced through memorization of previously played hands.
Contract Bridge has also become the subject of electronic access via various Internet applications and services. In this way, individuals are now offered online opportunities to play Contract Bridge or one of its variants without the need to assemble four people in one physical location. Utilizing an electronic device such as a personal computer, smart phone, tablet or other similar device to access the application and service permits an individual the ability to play the game on demand. The immediate access and electronic processing brings certain advantages to the game, such as easy analysis of games played, the ability to play with partners geographically distant, faster play without the need to shift chairs or wait for shuffles of the card deck, a more stringent adherence to the rules, and eliminating the unauthorized passing of information by tone of voice or body language.
However, the aforementioned disadvantages remain, even with a system of the playing of Contract Bridge utilizing electronic devices and between geographically remote players. Partners remain unfamiliar with each other and are thus unable to decide on bidding and playing conventions ahead of the game and thus remain at a disadvantage in coordinating their combined play. In a more general sense, what is needed is a computer-implemented system and method for improving the facilitation of information exchange between individuals (e.g., Contract Bridge partners, Teachers and students, etc.) which would function to benefit all involved individuals.
Accordingly, it would be highly desirable to provide such a system and method, whereby individuals in computer (or other electronic device) communication, albeit geographically remote from one another, can establish scenarios and exercises enabling them to facilitate the efficient exchange of information that overcome impediments associated with particular scenarios associated with existing computer-implemented information exchange. It would be further desirable to provide such a system having adequate flexibility to he adapted for use by teachers of a particular subject matter (i.e., not just Contact Bridge teachers, but, for example, teachers within an educational school system trying to maximize their students' learning of particular subjects) to more effectively and efficiently exchange information with students while also improving the learning of such information by students.